G.R. No.

175851               July 4, 2012

EMILIA LIM, Petitioner,
vs.
MINDANAO WINES & LIQUOR GALLERIA, a Single Proprietorship Business Outfit Owned
by Evelyn S. Valdevieso, Respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Acquittal from a crime does not necessarily mean absolution from civil liability.

Despite her acquittal from the charges of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) or the
Bouncing Checks Law, the lower courts still found petitioner Emilia Lim (Emilia) civilly liable and
ordered her to pay the value of the bounced checks, a ruling which was upheld by the Court of
Appeals (CA) in its June 30, 2006 Decision1 and November 9, 2006 Resolution2 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 64897.

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Emilia prays for the reversal and setting aside of the
said rulings of the CA. She contends that since her acquittal was based on insuffiency of
evidence, it should then follow that the civil aspect of the criminal cases filed against her be
likewise dismissed. Hence, there is no basis for her adjudged civil liability.

Factual Antecedents

Sales Invoice No. 17113 dated November 24, 1995, as well as Statement of Accounts No.
0764 indicate that respondent Mindanao Wines and Liquor Galleria (Mindanao Wines) delivered
several cases of liquors to H & E Commercial owned by Emilia, for which the latter issued four
Philippine National Bank (PNB) postdated checks worth ₱25,000.00 each. When two of these
checks, particularly PNB Check Nos. 9514535 and 9514546 dated October 10, 1996 and October
20, 1996, respectively, bounced for the reasons ‘ACCOUNT CLOSED’ and ‘DRAWN AGAINST
INSUFFICIENT FUNDS’, Mindanao Wines, thru its proprietress Evelyn Valdevieso, demanded
from H & E Commercial the payment of their value through two separate letters both dated
November 18, 1996.7 When the demands went unheeded, Mindanao Wines filed before Branch
2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City Criminal Case Nos. 68,309-B-98
and 68,310-B-98 against Emilia for violations of BP 22.8

During trial, the prosecution presented its sole witness, Nieves Veloso

(Nieves), accountant and officer-in-charge of Mindanao Wines. She testified that Emilia has
been a customer of Mindanao Wines who purchased from it assorted liquors. In fact, Sales
Invoice No. 1711 covered the orders made by Emilia from Mindanao Wines and these orders
were delivered by the latter’s salesman Marcelino Bersaluna 9 (Marcelino) to H & E Commercial
in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. For the same, Marcelino received the four PNB checks and
accordingly endorsed them to Mindanao Wines. Out of these four PNB checks, two were
already paid, i.e., one was collected while the other redeemed in court.10

With regard to the bounced PNB Check Nos. 951453 and 951454, Nieves claimed that upon her
instructions Marcelino went to H & E Commercial more than 10 times to collect their value. But
since his efforts were in vain, two demand letters were thus sent to Emilia which were duly
received by her as the same were ‘signed by the recipient of the letters’.11

On cross, Nieves admitted that she neither saw Emilia issue the checks nor accompanied
Marcelino in delivering the orders to H & E Commercial or in collecting the unpaid
checks.12 Asked about the corresponding sales order covering Sales Invoice No. 1711, she
acknowledged that the sales order was unsigned and explained that sales orders of customers
are handled by the Credit and Collection Department of Mindanao Wines.13

After the prosecution rested its case, Emilia filed a Demurrer to Evidence 14 claiming insufficiency
of evidence. She asserted that not one of the elements of BP 22 was proven because the
witness merely relied upon the reports of the salesman; that the purchases covered by Sales
Invoice No. 1711 were unauthorized because the corresponding job order was unsigned; and
that it was never established that the bank dishonored the checks or that she was even sent a
notice of dishonor.

Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities

In its December 10, 1999 Order,15 the MTCC granted the Demurrer to Evidence. It ruled that
while Emilia did issue the checks for value, the prosecution nevertheless miserably failed to
prove one essential element that consummates the crime of BP 22, i.e., the fact of dishonor of
the two subject checks. It noted that other than the checks, no bank representative testified
about presentment and dishonor. Hence, the MTCC acquitted Emilia of the criminal charges.
However, the MTCC still found her civilly liable because when she redeemed one of the checks
during the pendency of the criminal cases, the MTCC considered the same as an
acknowledgement on her part of her obligation with Mindanao Wines. Pertinent portions of the
MTCC Order read:

The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 must concur before one can be convicted of this offense. Since
one element is wanting, it is believed that the guilt of the accused has not been established
beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, however, opines that the accused is civilly liable. There is
evidence on record that an account was contracted. She should, therefore, pay.

WHEREFORE, the demurrer to evidence is granted and these cases are ordered DISMISSED.

Accused, however, is adjudged to pay complainant the total amounts of the 2 checks which is
₱50,000.00, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be computed from the date of notice
which is November 18, 1996 until the amount is paid in full; to reimburse complainant of the
expenses incurred in filing these cases in the amount of ₱1,245.00, and to pay attorney’s fees
of ₱10,000.00.

SO ORDERED.16

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

Dissatisfied that her acquittal did not carry with it her exoneration from civil liability, Emilia
appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 13. Emilia contended that
since the MTCC dismissed the criminal cases ‘on the ground of insufficient evidence,’ the civil
aspect of the criminal cases should likewise be automatically dismissed. She argued that the
court may only award damages for the civil aspect of BP 22 if the criminal cases have been
dismissed on ‘reasonable doubt’ upon proof of preponderance of evidence.

The RTC was not persuaded by Emilia’s contentions. The RTC clarified that the MTCC
dismissed the criminal cases based on ‘reasonable doubt’ and not on ‘insufficiency of evidence.’
And while the prosecution failed to prove criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt, Emilia’s
indebtedness was nonetheless proven by preponderance of evidence, the quantum of evidence
required to prove the same. Thus, the RTC declared in its January 5, 2001 Order17 that:

The prosecution however had established that the accused had issued the checks subject of
these cases. The accused had impliedly admitted that she was the maker of the checks subject
of [these] case[s] when she redeemed a third check from the complainant. In fact, the accused
had never categorically denied having issued the checks subject of these cases. When the
accused filed the Demurrer to Evidence, she had hypothetically admitted the evidence
presented by the prosecution to be true, and this includes the allegation of the prosecution that
the accused issued the checks subject of these cases for value.18

Thus, it dismissed the appeal, viz:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal of the accused in these cases is hereby
DISMISSED, and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.19
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Undeterred, Emilia filed before the CA a Petition for Review 20 still insisting that the MTCC’s
dismissal was based on ‘insufficiency of evidence’ and that same pertains to both the criminal
and civil aspects of BP 22. She reiterated that there was no basis for the civil award made by
the MTCC since the prosecution failed to show evidence of her civil liability and that a court can
only award civil liability in cases of acquittals based on reasonable doubt and not on
insufficiency of evidence.

In its June 30, 2006 Decision, the CA emphasized that even if acquitted, an accused may still
be held civilly liable if a) the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt or b) the court declared
that the liability of the accused is only civil. Just like the RTC, the CA ruled that the dismissal of
the criminal cases against Emilia was expressly based on reasonable doubt, hence, she is not
free from civil liability because the same is not automatically extinguished by acquittal based on
said ground. The CA further declared that even granting that her acquittal was for ‘insufficiency
of evidence,’ the same is still akin to a dismissal based on reasonable doubt.

Respecting the factual conclusions of the lower courts anent Emilia’s civil liability, the CA noted
that Emilia had never denied issuing the subject checks for value which, in themselves
constituted evidence of indebtedness. Moreover, she failed to refute the prosecution’s evidence
when she filed a Demurrer to Evidence. The CA therefore affirmed the assailed Order of the
RTC except that it deleted the award of attorney’s fees, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Br.
13, Davao City, affirming in toto the Order of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Br. 2,
Davao City as to the civil liability of Emilia Lim, is hereby AFFIRMED with the sole modification
that the award of attorney’s fees in favor of the Respondent is DELETED.

SO ORDERED. 21

On Motion for Reconsideration,22 Emilia asserted that by granting her Demurrer to Evidence

based on insufficiency of evidence, the MTCC acknowledged that there is absolutely no case
against her. She alleged that the ‘preponderance of evidence’ required in determining civil
liability does not apply to her as she never presented any evidence at all, implying that in such a
determination, both parties should have presented their respective evidence for the purpose of
ascertaining as to which of the evidence presented is superior.

The CA, however, rejected the motion in its Resolution 23 dated November 9, 2006. It held that
‘insufficiency’ does not mean the ‘total absence of evidence,’ but that ‘evidence is lacking of
what is necessary or required to make out her case.’ The CA explained that the MTCC acquitted
Emilia because the quantum of evidence required for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
was insufficient to convict her of BP 22. However, the extinction of the civil aspect does not
necessarily follow such acquittal. The CA also disregarded Emilia’s argument that a
‘preponderance of evidence’ should be a comparison of evidence of the opposing parties as
such interpretation would lead to absurdity because by simply refusing to present evidence, a
defendant can then be easily absolved from a civil suit.

Hence, this petition raising the following assignment of errors:

1) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING

THAT THE AWARD OF CIVIL LIABILITY IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT AND
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS A NULLITY FOR LACK OF DUE PROCESS, APART
FROM THE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT A JURIDICAL PERSON OR IS
NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.

2) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING

THAT BECAUSE THE GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL WAS FOR "INSUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE" AND NOT ON "REASONABLE DOUBT," THE DISMISSAL OF THE
CRIMINAL CASES CARRIES WITH IT THE DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL CASES
DEEMED INSTITUTED THEREIN.
 3) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION
OF THE CONCEPT OF "PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE."

4) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING

THAT THERE IS NO PIECE OF "ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE" PRESENTED THAT MAY
BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO PROVE CIVIL LIABILITY.24

In sum, the core issue in this petition is whether the dismissal of Emilia’s BP 22 cases likewise
includes the dismissal of their civil aspect.

Our Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

Emilia’s allegations that she was denied due process and that Mindanao Wines is not the real
party in interest do not merit our attention as these were never raised for resolution before the
courts below.

Emilia claims that she was deprived of due process when the courts below declared her civilly
liable. In support of this, she cites Salazar v. People 25 wherein it was held that a court cannot
rule upon the civil aspect of the case should it grant a demurrer to evidence with leave of court
since the accused is entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil liability. Emilia
likewise contends that Mindanao Wines is not a juridical person, it being a single proprietorship
only and thus, not the real party in interest in this case.

We note, however, that Emilia had never invoked before the courts below the ruling in
Salazar.1âwphi1 Neither did she specify in her pleadings filed therein whether her demurrer was
filed with or without leave of court. It is only now that Emilia is claiming that the same was filed
with leave of court in an apparent attempt to conform the facts of this case with that in Salazar.
The same goes true with regard to the questioned locus standi of Mindanao Wines. Emilia
likewise did not raise in her pleadings filed with the RTC or the CA that the civil aspect is
dismissible for lack of cause of action because Mindanao Wines is not a juridical person and
thus not a real party in interest. In fact, the courts below all along considered Mindanao Wines
as the plaintiff and the trial proceeded as such.

Obviously, these new issues are mere afterthoughts.1âwphi1 They were raised only for the first
time in this petition for review on certiorari. Never were they presented before the RTC and the
CA for resolution. To allow Emilia to wage a legal blitzkrieg and blindside Mindanao Wines is a
violation of the latter’s due process rights:

It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the
proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of
the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a
reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic
considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time on
appeal is barred by estoppel.26

For this reason, the said issues do not merit the Court’s consideration.

Notwithstanding her acquittal, Emilia is civilly liable.

"The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where x
x x the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
required"27 in civil cases. On this basis, Emilia insists that the MTCC dismissed the BP 22 cases
against her not on the ground of reasonable doubt but on insufficiency of evidence. Hence, the
civil liability should likewise be extinguished. Emilia’s Demurrer to Evidence, however, betrays
this claim. Asserting insufficiency of evidence as a ground for granting said demurrer, Emilia
herself argued therein that the prosecution has not proven [her] guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.28 And in consonance with such assertion, the MTCC in its judgment expressly stated that
her guilt was indeed not established beyond reasonable doubt, hence the acquittal.29
In any case, even if the Court treats the subject dismissal as one based on insufficiency of
evidence as Emilia wants to put it, the same is still tantamount to a dismissal based on
reasonable doubt. As may be recalled, the MTCC dismissed the criminal cases because one
essential element of BP 22 was missing, i.e., the fact of the bank’s dishonor. The evidence was
insufficient to prove said element of the crime as no proof of dishonor of the checks was
presented by the prosecution. This, however, only means that the trial court cannot convict
Emilia of the crime since the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
quantum of evidence required in criminal cases. Conversely, the lack of such proof of dishonor
does not mean that Emilia has no existing debt with Mindanao Wines, a civil aspect which is
proven by another quantum of evidence, a mere preponderance of evidence.

Emilia also avers that a court’s determination of preponderance of evidence necessarily entails
the presentation of evidence of both parties. She thus believes that she should have been first
required to present evidence to dispute her civil liability before the lower courts could determine
preponderance of evidence.

We disagree.

"Preponderance of evidence is [defined as] the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term ‘greater
weight of the evidence’ or ‘greater weight of the credible evidence’. It is evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto."30 Contrary to Emilia’s interpretation, a determination of this quantum of evidence does
not need the presentation of evidence by both parties. As correctly reasoned out by the CA,
Emilia’s interpretation is absurd as this will only encourage defendants to waive their
presentation of evidence in order for them to be absolved from civil liability for lack of
preponderance of evidence. Besides, Emilia should note that even when a respondent does not
present evidence, a complainant in a civil case is nevertheless burdened to substantiate his or
her claims by preponderance of evidence before a court may rule on the reliefs prayed for by
the latter. Settled is the principle that "parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence,
not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent."31

Lastly, we see no reason to disturb the ruling of the CA anent Emilia’s civil liability. As may be
recalled, the CA affirmed the lower courts’ factual findings on the matter. Factual findings of the
trial court, when affirmed by the CA, will not be disturbed. 32 Also, "[i]t is a settled rule that in a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of [Court], only questions of law may
be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court." 33 Moreover, "it is well to remember that
a check may be evidence of indebtedness. A check, the entries of which are in writing, could
prove a loan transaction."34 While Emilia is acquitted of violations of BP 22, she should
nevertheless pay the debt she owes.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The challenged June 30, 2006
Decision and November 9, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64897
are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.